Now that there is an anti-Cybercrime law in the Philippines, stuff published online is now subject to the same libel laws that have for some time been applied to stuff published on traditional media like newspapers and magazines and broadcast on TV and radio. I suppose the principle there is that computers and their networks are just another medium used to disseminate content. As such the libel law just needed to be updated to cover those new distribution channels.

But then the same law also bans “cybersex”, defined as…

[…] the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.

There is something wrong with that part of the law. If the Web is considered by the law to be just another form of publication or broadcast medium, wouldn’t the Web (using the same thinking) also be just another venue for sexual activity? In essence, blogging and social media is to traditional media as cybersex is to traditional sex in the bedroom (or car backseat, for that matter).

Whereas there is an existing libel law that penalizes unlawful behavior in traditional media that can be applied now that the concept of “media” has been extended to the Web, there is no law against sexual activity between consenting adults in traditional places (like the bedroom) that can be applied to non-traditional venues for sex.

The sentence structure with which the clause on cybersex is articulated in the new law allows us to interpret it into component stipulations using the following structure:

We can construct one permutation from the above phrase that will look like this:

“the willful engagement, directly, of any sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system for favor or consideration”

Voila! One can argue that masturbating while watching lewd videos online even in the privacy of your own home is a criminal activity under that premise. Wow! The Philippine police are gonna have their hands full arresting hundreds of thousands of Filipino wankers!

I’d understand if the cybersex parts of the new law apply existing laws covering unlawful sexual activities to online venues (like it does for libel). However, reading the text describing the definition of (now unlawful) cybersex in Republic Act 10175, it seems that all online sexual activity — including that engaged in by consenting adults — is now a crime in the Philippines.

A cop on every corner of the street to check on this? Whats the fine/penalty for wanking at home? They say “crime doesnt pay” but I really wonder what the fine will be? Two years imprisonment and then being locked up with other (male & female) wankers in one cell. Now that would be a joy!!!! (LOL). Make my day. (LOL)

â€œthe willful engagement, directly, of any sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system for favor or considerationâ€

Iâ€™d understand if the cybersex parts of the new law apply existing laws covering unlawful sexual activities to online venues (like it does for libel). However, reading the text describing the definition of (now unlawful) cybersex in Republic Act 10175, it seems that all online sexual activity â€” including that engaged in by consenting adults â€” is now a crime in the Philippines.

Your conclusion is wrong.. Two consenting adults doing it online for mutual satisfaction does not constitute a crime in the absence of “favors or consideration.” It is only a crime when these two consenting adults exhibit their sexual activity before the public for a fee, (favor or consideration) that it becomes a crime under this new law.

However, under existing law, indecent exposure and other immoral activity (pornography), which include, i submit, screwing up a partner displayed on the web is tangentially covered by Art. 200, Sec. (b), Revised Penal Code, Book II:

b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.

Maybe if the law meant to put it the way you did then it should have been written the way you wrote it. The law pertaining specifically to cybersex, as I’ve read it, makes no mention of such conditions involving fees or public exposure. I’ve deconstructed the sentence and it is internally consistent — cybersex even between consenting adults is categorically ILLEGAL according to Philippine law. 😛

One can get away with murder in Pilipinas — one evidence?? “Who masterminded Ninoy Aquino assasination???”. Lampas na// statute-of-limitations on Ninoy at the tarmac, and a barbero somewhere may speculate that baka naman Noynoy has already made peace with mastermind.

Back to wanking —> my guess. Compared to murder, then statute of limitations on wanking would be very short…. like “ten minutes after the stuff dries”.

Our lawmakers don’t get it! Not only that but they’re hypocrites as I’m sure a large chunk of them enjoy porn material in their spare time!

Anyway, if you really wanna keep the population under control, you gotta give them their porn access, y’know? I know for a fact that the Chinese government (with their notorious Great Firewall of China) has actually quietly liberalized their restrictions on porn over the years. Read this article to know more: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6703860.html

They should have made it clearer, more specific. Isn’t sex that intimate time shared between two consenting adults? The only time I’d consider sex as against the law is if it violates that thing about public indecency or if its between someone or someones not of age.
This RA is driving me up the wall with just how many loopholes, or simply put, holes it has within its paragraphs.
Good thing it is, in a sense, under review.

The target is Webcam sites. Girls are giving live masturbation shows on the web and it is very hard for this to be regulated. Nobody is able to check to see if the girls are of legal age or if they are coerced. I think you should commend the government of the Philippines for taking a stand against human smuggling and the possible corruption and exploitation of minors. Nobody is going to care if a husband and wife that have been separated are doing a little webcam hanky-panky.

The persons who drafted the law DO care. What’s worse; the exploitation of minors issue is a pretext for drumming up support for a cyber bill that goes way beyond the sex issue. The new libel provisions are meant to curb criticism of the government voiced by bloggers online. There has been a chilling effect on the internet since its passage. Fewer people seem to be criticizing politicians by name and more referring to their nefarious activities in a general sense. Whenever a politician protests about the mistreatment of women and children it is usually to garner support for a much broader attack on first amendment rights.

Philippine President Benigno Simeon (BS) Aquino would like us all to believe that the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law will bring peace to Mindanao. This is probably what some people around him like Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Secretary Teresita » read more